Pumpelly v. Village of Owego

22 How. Pr. 385
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 22 How. Pr. 385 (Pumpelly v. Village of Owego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pumpelly v. Village of Owego, 22 How. Pr. 385 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1862).

Opinion

By the Court.

An appeal lies to the general term from an order made at a special term, “ when it grants or refuses a new trial.” (Code, § 349, sub. 2.) The order in this case refusing a new trial, was regularly made before the judgment was entered; and we think an appeal lies from the order to the general term, notwithstanding the entry of the judgment before the same was taken. (See 19 How. Pr. R., 515.) The case of Jackson agt. Fassett, (33 Barb., 645,) and others like it, only show that a motion for a new trial on a case cannot be made at a special term after judgment has been entered unconditionally in the action. Thosei decisions are not in point upon this motion.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore denied, with $10 costs to abide the event of the action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Voisin v. Commercial Mutual Insurance
25 N.E. 325 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Voisin v. Commercial Mutual Insurance
9 N.Y.S. 267 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Stilwell v. Staples
4 Rob. 639 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1866)
Lane v. Bailey
1 Abb. Pr. 407 (New York Supreme Court, 1865)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 How. Pr. 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pumpelly-v-village-of-owego-nysupct-1862.